Most agriculture is already industrial. I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here.

The world’s animal population will drop dramatically since most animals other than fish are human-fed.

If all of agriculture goes industrial, much of today’s ag land will be effectively abandoned. Maybe then animal populations will rebound, although not with today’s distribution of species.

Shorter term, we’re seeing the fishing industry moving away from its hunter/gatherer origins towards aquaculture. Will that be good or bad for sea creatures from the standpoint of animal welfare?

I.e., is it more humane to hunt animals in the wild or to raise them in captivity where they get 3 squares a day and free health care?

In fact, I think it would take a major exodus of humans from earth or the creation of wild biospheres or people moving out of rural areas and into self sufficient cities with high rise farms and meat factories to allow animal habitats.

Say 1% reduction (a hugely successful campaign) in demand for beef. Every cow raised on farms for meat is still slaughtered and processed. Over a few years 1% less cows raised on ranches, but there is still the same slaughter ratio.

Substitution will not e advanced in the US with government help but just as the soy industry and soy burgers etc… were developed as a substitute to take market share so would meat factories. It is a lower cost, niche market business plan that eventually would win more market share.

Like egg substitute
http://lowfatcooking.about.com/od/faqs/f/eggsubstitute.htm

Margerine
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Margerine

What I’m describing here is more of a personal ethical transition than a prescription for the world’s ills. I do think that market forces will factor very large in the transition you’re talking about. And as difficult as it seems to be to get government sponsorship around Zubrin’s ideas for energy, I really can’t imagine a government program (in the US, anyway) pushing alternatives to harvesting meat from livestock. I think the farm lobby is too powerful to allow something like that to happen.

Plus even if the end-goal case can be made ethically then the progression seems to require a more practical pathway and prioritization. Just like the case and plans for non-harm energy sources. I would say for energy tackle coal (the clear worst) first and the other on an case by case opportunity basis but without over emphasis (because trying to take out all fossil fuels is 86-90% of existing sources while coal is 24% and still a multi-decade job). Similarly the focus on saving human lives, reducing human suffering and preventing catastrophic environmental damage seem to big enough tasks. Just jawboning a few people into being vegans is not going to budge the needle getting widespread factory meat that is tastier and healthier and more energy efficient will make a wide scale substitution possible.

As Zubrin makes the case for energy substitution, so there has to be food substitution. Wide spread denial as a plan is doomed to fail.

BTW, I don’t describe myself as a vegetarian. I think those chickens I’ve been eating would agree that I’m not!

What I’ve never understood are meat eaters that say, “for every animal you don’t eat, I’ll eat two”. Does it make people feel like a bigger man to kill more animals? Is there any better way of saying “I’m proud to disrespect anything alive that isn’t human?” Why say something that our future selves will so obviously consider idiotic?

Yeah, I don’t get that, either. Some people really like to push buttons, I suppose. I doubt very many people actually increase their meat intake to “compensate” for the vegetarians, but it’s still an obnoxious thing to say.

For a while I was even a vegan, but I backslided into eating cheese and fish.

I’m ambiguous on George’s approach. I think it’s worth trying anything, even being accusatory, just to see if anything works. Maybe people need to be shocked out of their compulsion to eat meat.

What I’ve never understood are meat eaters that say, “for every animal you don’t eat, I’ll eat two”. Does it make people feel like a bigger man to kill more animals? Is there any better way of saying “I’m proud to disrespect anything alive that isn’t human?” Why say something that our future selves will so obviously consider idiotic?